IF I SEEK US

Imminent Fulfillment,  Immortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, Knowledge,  Unity, Society

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses

Modern Myth Articles

Any pursuit of understanding and meaning requires faith, the acceptance of certain underlying assumptions that are necessary if one is to use a given mode of inquiry.  ...proponents of religion emphasize the crucial role of faith, though it is unfortunately often presented in the form of uncritical belief.  ...faith is also a prerequisite for philosophical inquiry; the philosopher needs the confidence that such inquiry actually pertains to truth, that reality can be thought about.  In addition to faith, philosophizing also requires reason.  If a theory is internally inconsistent, illogical, or inconsistent with experience, it is unlikely to be accepted as sound philosophy. 
      Science also requires a type of faith, although it rarely goes under that label.  Whereas religions normally make a clear statement of their articles of faith, science introduces its assumptions more surreptitiously. B. Alan Wallace, Choosing Reality,  p. 3

A Dozen Science Myths
12/13/2018

The following science myths have significantly and effectively been disconfirmed, yet are still considered dogma in the halls of academia.

1. Relativity:

2. Constant speed of light: over the last 200 years, more than a dozen different observers and experimenters have measured the speed of light using at least 16 different methods. Some of these scientists have taken measurements over their lifetimes, using the same equipment and protocols, so that changes in these factors would not induce a corresponding change in the value obtained. All of the results show a constant decline in the velocity of light that amounts to 0.5 percent over that time period.

See: http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html

For a so-called universal constant, this is a monstrous change, and one that shouldn't be swept under the rug. Prior to the advent of relativity and up to about 1940, articles about these results were published in the physics journals and the changes in the experimental or observed results were openly discussed. Since that date and the mainstream acceptance of relativity, the stream of articles and discussion has dried up. This one phenomenon of a decrease in the speed of light by itself completely undermines and disconfirms relativity.

Now we come to the year 2015, when scientists are showing that structured light travels slower than non-structured light.

3. Absence of an aether:

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm

Did the Michelson-Morley experiments
prove there was no "aether wind"?

Probably not! They have been accepted by almost everyone as giving a "null" result, but in point of fact they showed a very interesting periodic variation indicating something. If it was the presence of an aether wind, then it was not behaving in the way they expected, but it was definitely something that needed further investigation, and Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley, undertook the task. The variations proved to be reproducible and to show systematic changes with time of year and some other factors. He also showed, incidentally, that the effect disappeared if you put the apparatus in a thick-walled enclosure, which nullifies several of the more recent tests. He summarised his work in great detail in a review paper in 1933 (Miller, Dayton C, “The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth”, Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242 (1933)). For a much shorter version written in 1940 (the year before he died) see his article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

He interpreted his results as showing relative motion of the aether. It could either be that the solar system was moving pretty fast (about 200 km/sec, faster than the earth moves around the sun) in a direction roughly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, or the aether was moving in the opposite direction at that speed. The aether seemed to be moving like a fluid, going with much slower relative velocity near solid bodies, thus accounting for the apparently modest speed (about 10 km/sec) indicated by Miller's experiments.

These facts about Miller were drawn to my attention by James DeMeo, who continues to research the subject. It appears that there was a major difference of opinion between Miller and Einstein. Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null! The aether was not acceptable. DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought. Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein. (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse. By 1955 the aether had become a dirty word. Even in 1940 or so, I can find no reference to Miller's existence in Herbert Ives' papers (see The Einstein Myth in my book list). The 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment^*, currently accepted as an accurate confirmation of Michelson and Morley's "null" result, appears to have been conducted in ignorance of Miller's work. They seem to have been unaware of Miller's conclusion that the aether wind can only be detected in the open. Their temperature-controlled Fabry-Perot interferometer would have had little chance!

DeMeo is not the only person to have spotted Shankland and Einstein's error! See notes by Prof Allais to the French Academy of Sciences, 1997, 1999 and 2000 at http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm .

However, let us not jump to conclusions! Could Miller in fact have been seeing the same thing as Gershteyn et al., who reported in February 2002** that there was an apparent periodic variation in the value of G? The data was not quite conclusive but appeared to show that its main variations followed a sidereal cycle, not a solar one. Could it be that a gravitational effect caused the arms of Miller's apparatus to bend and vary slightly in effective length? Or could it be that what he saw was merely an ordinary wind effect? Whatever it was, it should not have been ignored. Even if there was no sign of drift, this should not have been used to dismiss the idea of an aether, since all it means is that some wrong assumptions have been made about its properties.

*A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, Physical Review Letters 42, 549 (1979)

**Mikhail Gershteyn et al, “Experimental Evidence That the Gravitational Constant Varies with Orientation”, www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058

For a fundamental and fatal challenge to Relativity theory see: Relativity Theory

4. Invariance of the random radioactive decay rate: In our experience, there are two factors that create, effect or determine the future 1) Cause, and 2) Purpose. Number one, cause, is relatively easy to see or understand. In scientific thinking, every event or development has a cause or combination of causes, so that the future is a fabric of causes. However, because human beings have a purposive affect on the future, purpose is also a creative agent for the future. Change your purpose and you will thereby change your future.

Science generally eschews dealing with purpose and therefore deals exclusively with cause and effect in the "hard" sciences. When it comes to radioactive decay, science is being hypocritical when it claims that atomic decay is random. Randomness is not a cause. Not only is science hypocritical in this regard, but it is blind when it claims the decay rate is constant. Certainly the decay rate can be changed by bombardment with neutrons—that is how an atomic chain reaction is set off—but the decay rate can also be affected by electric field strength, and the decay rate shows a pattern that is in sync with the sidereal day.

"Radioactive isotope decay rate or half-life can be increased or decreased as needed to deactivate radioactivity or to increase shelf life of radioactive isotopes. Currently many investigators/experimenters have reported half-life anomalies and have demonstrated repeatability of the various processes. The deactivation/neutralization of radioactivity in isotopes by the several demonstrated processes clearly suggest the possibility of full scale processing of radioactive nuclear materials to deactivate radioactive nuclear materials. "

"In 1964 we thought and believed that radioactivity in nuclear waste would soon be history on planet earth. As history has proven us wrong, we now know and understand that there is a fortune, billions yearly, to be made by saving every scrap of radioactive nuclear waste and trying to bury it in Yucca Mountain and in cleaning up spills, leaks, and escaping radioactive particles from decaying containment schemes. We were just looking at the wrong goal post. No one receiving the funds has any interest in eliminating radioactivity in nuclear waste. Nuclear Half-Life Modification Technology could reduce the cost to a fraction of the cost that is experienced today." ( "Radioactivity Deactivation at High Temperature in an Applied DC Voltage Field Demonstrated in 1964". Larry Geer & Cecil Baumgartner, www.gdr.org/nuclear_half.htm )

“The ‘Reifenschweiler effect’ is the observation that the beta-decay of tritium half-life 12.5 years is delayed reversibly by about 25-30% when the isotope is absorbed in 15 nm titanium-clusters in a temperature window in between 160-275 C. Remarkably at 360 C the original radioactivity reappears. The effect is absent in bulk metal. Discovered around 1960/1962 at Philips Research Eindhoven, The Netherlands Reifenschweiler extensively discussed his observation with o.a Casimir (the director of research at the time), Kistemaker (ultracentrifuge expert), and although no satisfactory explanation was found, R. was allowed to publish it. At the time a unique example as to how an electronic environment might affect nuclear phenomena.”

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/311alberts.html

"Thirty years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler was searching for a compound which could protect Geiger-Mueller tubes from damage when they are first ionised. He found the compound, which became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium. He also discovered that as the mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined sharply. No process known to physics could account for such a baffling phenomenon: radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. Nevertheless, as the temperature increased from 115°C to 160°C, the emission of beta particles fell by 28%." High temperature supresses radioactive decay", Science Frontiers, Mar-Apr- 1994 http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf092/sf092c14.htm

Physics Letters A (“Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles,” Vol. 184, pp. 149-153).

"It became clear that radioactive decay rates could be affected by ordinary electrolysis. This led some scientists to propose that a process be developed for disposal of radioactive waste. Dr. G.H. Miley, for example, wrote U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (1999), Proposal No. 99-0222, "Scientific Feasibility Study of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRS) for Nuclear Waste Amelioration".( http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2725/ ) The proposal was actually accepted, but some of those "institutionalized, atherosclerotic precision mound builders" that I talk about, later killed the project." ("Adventures in Energy Destruction", http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/adven.html )

"In Issue No. 26 of Infinite Energy, we reported that Prof. George Miley's Low- Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Group at the University of Illinois had been awarded a peer-reviewed U.S. Department of Energy contract— for an experimental study to verify previously tested electrolytic techniques to remediate radioactive nuclides. In Issue No. 27, we reported that Miley's grant was in danger of being eliminated by a chorus of cold fusion critics who protested to DOE officials about the award. The critics have now succeeded in getting the Miley grant killed.

Miley's funding of approximately $100,000 has been eliminated by DOE before one penny of it was transferred to the University of Illinois. A secret "review" of the science behind the award by an unnamed panel of six individuals (increased for some unknown reason from the original three panelists) did the killing. Other universities winning these NERI— Nuclear Energy Research Initiative— awards have received their funding already."
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue28/criticskill.html  http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN05.htm

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2725/

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue28/criticskill.html

And here is one from Transactions of the American Nuclear Society:

"Previously, it has been reported that nuclear transmutation reactions are accelerated when radioactive elements are subjected to low-level electric fields during electrolysis of aqueous electrolytes. . . . Our research investigated the co-deposition of U3O8 and H on Ni cathodes, using an acidic electrolyte and a Pt anode. Then, the radiation emitted by the electroplated U3O8 was compared with radiation emitted by un-electrolyzed U3O8 from the same batch. . . . The electroplated U3O8 initially produced ~2900 counts in 3 min (April 17, 2000). This rose sporadically in steps to 3700 counts in 3 min on May 11, 2000, and it remained relatively constant at this level until the . . . measurements ended on June 8, 2000. The unelectrolyzed U3O8 from the same batch emitted radiation at a much lower rate, ~1250 counts in 3 min, and this remained almost constant over the entire period of measurement." (G. Goddard, J. Dash and S. Frantz, "Characterization of Uranium Co-deposited with Hydrogen on Nickel Cathodes", Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 83, 376-378 (2000) ).

I have actually done experiments with radioactive materials that show dramatic changes in decay rates. The experiments are inexpensive, easy to do, and very repeatable. You can read about my experiences at: "Adventures in Energy Destruction",
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/adven.html

5. Validity of radiometric dating: Translated from the Italian...

“...Since there are now numerous experimental tests that contradict the hypothesis that radioisotopes can yield accurate prehistoric dates, there can be no doubt that this method of dating has proved to be nothing more than a nice hope, a dream , but it will never be accepted as a scientific theory. Or to say the same thing in a slightly more philosophical way , following Popper , we could say that the theory in question has been falsified.  The fact that currently most of the scientific community accepts it as a fact is a bad sign, and sound scientific evidence that all too often they use all their energy in defending shared prejudices rather than being open to new discoveries, who prefer protecting lies rather than admitting their mistakes...(see the analysis of the theoretical physicist Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").

In 1986, lava came out of Mt. St. Helens volcano.  In 1997, five samples of the lava flow were analyzed and dated by the method of radioisotope (potassium - argon method to be exact) : the result was not only that contemporary events were dated differently, but that the actual date (just 11 years) yielded dates ranging from less than half a million years to almost 3 million years . The maximum percentage error committed in this "measurement" is about to 2,000,000,000% , two billion percent!  Do not laugh at the thought of ancient fossils are dated using this " advanced scientific technique."

Now I cite two examples of  unreliable dating, but which have been reworked to try and bring the results to the expectations of the researchers :

· The first is the dating of fossils of Australopithecus ramidus (scientific reference: WoldeGabriel , G. et al, Ecological and temporal placement of early Pliocene hominids at Aramis , Ethiopia , Nature 371 : 330-333 , 1994). In order to perform a first dating is that skeleton, they tried to evaluate the samples of basalt closest to the layer from which they had extracted fossils : the majority of these samples , analyzed by the argon – argon method, led to an estimated age of about 23 million years.  As such dating contradicted the thesis that hominids have been officially accepted only up to 6 or 7 million years, the authors of this research decided to discard these datings as too old.  So they examined samples of basalt farther away from fossil fuels and chose 17 of 26 examples to get the much more acceptable age of 4.4 Ma.  The nine samples provided much older ages, but the authors decided they were contaminated , and therefore discarded them . That's how radiometric dating works. It is guided by prejudice and the constant manipulation of data to explain everything in the light of obsolete and misleading theories.  A more philosophical and sociological T. Kuhn might say that scientists , rather than " explain" , try to " bend " the existing data, trying to bring results closer to the theories in vogue, trying to get the data to fit within the experimental prepackaged boxes of orthodox theories....”

6.  Universal constant of Gravity: The gravitational constant is drifting right here on earth and yet this canard, like many others, has a life of its own. We can have no confidence that the "gravitational constant" is the same in other galaxies. There are more than one model that replace the "geometrical description" that we use but that is not really an explanation.

7.  Galactic components revolve around the galactic center of mass: Stars and star structures like globular clusters are Galactic components. They don't revolve this way; instead, they revolve around the galactic axis as part of a semi-rigid structure that turns like a wheel around an axis. Also, globular cluster structure is not sustained by rotation, but by electrical forces.

8.  Sun Powered by Internal nuclear fusion: This one should have been buried long ago and now top solar scientists admit it has been disconfirmed. The evidence that the sun is powered externally by electrical plasma Birkeland currents continues to pile up.

9. Redshift Equals Distance in Cosmology: Eminent astronomer Halton Arp and colleagues have put the lie to this fundamental building block of modern cosmology, and Arp's two books, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies and Seeing Red have much more than enough observations and information to satisfy the open-minded critical thinker.

10. Circular craters are caused by meteoric impact: Craters generally have a circular shape, and this is thought to be the result of a high speed impact. Overwhelmingly the craters on earth, other planets, and moons are not caused by impact from incoming solid objects like meteors, but are the result of one polarity of electrical discharge machining. Only a small percentage of circular craters are caused by impact and these generally differ significantly from those caused by electrical discharge.

11. Canyons, rilles, river beds are caused by water erosion: These are almost universally caused by previous interplanetary electrical discharge scarring (EDM) machining.

12. Anthropologically caused global warming and climate change: One comprehensive article that give a foundational view is: See The Settled Science

A summary of the situation is that these thousands of climate “scientists” and researchers are almost to a man completely ignorant of the major factors—recent planetary catastrophes, new solar system environment for our planet, and the actual electric driving forces that affect our climate and its change. Deplorable. And what is equally inexcusable, is that the climate change defenders mostly still believe that CO₂ is the enemy. Completely absurd in the face of the evidence. They also seem to have a penchant for buying into the “doom and gloom” guilt syndrome.

Also, they all seem to be compartmentalized in terms of a limited domain of concern—conservation, pollution, global warming, etc.—without looking for the balanced big picture. And they are all anxious to be heard, and to WIN for their petty, limited agenda.

What is also dismaying, is that some of them seem to have significant integrity while being positioned with a false paradigm. That’s just great! A potent mix of foolishness with great integrity. It doesn’t get any better than that? Is it more important to have great integrity while being wrong, or to have less integrity while being right?

Home  Site Sections  Complete Article Map   Contact  Store  Contributions